hodler

27 Mar 2026, 12:00

Garlinghouse Reveals Why Ripple Really Pivoted To Its Own Stablecoin

Ripple’s decision to launch RLUSD was not a sudden expansion beyond XRP so much as a move to internalize a business it was already helping power at scale. Speaking at FII Priority Miami 2026 , Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the company’s role in stablecoin flows had grown large enough that building its own product became the logical next step. Why Ripple Entered the Stablecoin Market Garlinghouse said the turning point came well before RLUSD’s launch 13 months ago. “Two years ago, we were minting 20% of all USDC,” he said, tying that activity directly to Ripple’s payments business. With more than $100 billion in payment flows already processed, Ripple concluded that if it was already a major engine behind stablecoin usage, it made sense to bring that function in-house. He also linked the decision to a moment of stress in the stablecoin market. Garlinghouse pointed to USDC’s temporary depeg during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse as a reminder that institutional users care about balance-sheet strength as much as blockchain rails. “Circle came out and said, hey, we’ll stand in the gap. We’ll guarantee the peg. And it didn’t move because at that point, Circle didn’t have a balance sheet,” he said. “Ripple has on our balance sheet, you know, 60, 70 billion dollars of crypto. We have about four billion dollars of US dollars. And so I think we’re in a position to really have a very compliant, very institutional focused stablecoin.” According to Garlinghouse, stablecoins are increasingly adopted not because companies want exposure to crypto branding, but because they want a better way to solve treasury, settlement and cross-border transfer problems. That broader shift, he argued, is already reshaping how the sector is perceived. Garlinghouse compared the current state of crypto to the internet industry in the late 1990s, when companies led with the technology rather than the use case. “We don’t talk about anything as an internet company now because it’s just prevalent in the background,” he said. “And I think that’s where some of the blockchain and crypto based solutions are heading”. Companies, he added, “just want to solve a payments problem. They want to solve a custody problem.” On market structure, Garlinghouse expects the stablecoin field to get more crowded before it gets smaller. He said the biggest banks are already evaluating whether they should issue their own stablecoins, but questioned whether the market benefits from too many dollar-backed instruments that ultimately serve the same economic function. “We don’t need, you know, 50 US dollar stablecoins. Like, why? Like, they’re all, it’s still, at the end of the day, a U.S. dollar,” he said. That does not mean he sees no room for differentiation. Instead, he argued that trust, licensing and reserve transparency will become the real competitive variables as the market matures. Ripple, he said, has deliberately taken a compliance-first route, pursuing not just a New York Department of Financial Services license but also an OCC license. He added that the sector as a whole needs more regulatory verification and disclosure, pointing even to Tether’s renewed push for an audit as evidence that transparency is becoming harder to avoid. Garlinghouse was similarly upbeat on the US policy backdrop. He described passage of the Genius Act as a major unlock for demand and said corporate executives are now actively asking whether stablecoins should be part of their operations. While he said follow-on legislation around asset classification has been slower, he argued the tone in Washington has already shifted sharply, citing recent coordination between the SEC and CFTC and predicting further progress by the end of May. “So I think we already have made huge progress in this administration to provide some of that structure and Clarity [Act] . I think clarity will still pass. I was in Washington two days ago, and I think we’ll still get something. I’ll predict by the end of May we’ll get something across,” Garlinghouse said. At press time, XRP traded at $1.36.

27 Mar 2026, 11:11

Federal judge blocks Trump admin from Anthropic ban, free speech violation

A U.S. judge just told the Trump administration to back off Anthropic, ruling on Thursday that the Pentagon had no legal ground to label the AI company a supply chain threat and block its tech across federal agencies. Judge Rita F. Lin in California told the government to stop enforcing the directive against Anthropic and demanded that they file a report by April 6 explaining how they are following her order. Judge says government punished Anthropic over speech and blocks enforcement “Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government,” the Judge wrote. This whole fight started when the Pentagon tagged Anthropic as a supply chain risk , a label that has usually been used for foreign enemies, just because the company said no to using it for mass surveillance as well as war crimes. The decision also banned agencies from using Claude, which is Anthropic’s main model, and the company challenged that in court through this lawsuit. Anthropic said the government skipped basic legal process and acted out of disagreement, not security risk. Rita Lin made her position clear before the ruling. At a hearing in San Francisco on Tuesday, she said the government set a very low bar for calling a company a threat. She said asking tough questions should not lead to punishment. In the written decision, Rita said the actions did not line up with real national security concerns. She said if the Pentagon had issues with command control, it could just stop using Claude instead of labeling the company a threat. She also said the steps taken looked like punishment aimed at Anthropic. Court records showed the Defense Department, which called itself the Department of War, based its decision on how Anthropic spoke in the press. Rita said that kind of reasoning breaks free speech protections and called it illegal retaliation. Anthropic pushes ahead with IPO plans while legal battle with Pentagon continues Meanwhile, the US government has already said it may appeal the decision, while at the same time, Anthropic is working on a possible stock market listing. The company is looking at an IPO that could happen as soon as October. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley are being looked at for major roles in the deal. The listing could raise more than $60 billion. The company has already reached a massive valuation. Anthropic was valued at $380 billion after a $30 billion funding round that closed in February. That round was led in part by MGX. Big tech is tied in as well. Alphabet’s Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Nvidia all have partnerships with Anthropic. These firms have invested money and provided chips and infrastructure in deals worth tens of billions. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .

27 Mar 2026, 10:30

Enlivex Announces $21M Debt Financing and Prediction Markets Treasury Expansion

Enlivex secures $21 million in debt financing while expanding its decentralized prediction markets treasury and authorizing a $20 million share repurchase. Enlivex Ltd. announced the completion of a $21 million debt financing (DF) agreement with The Lind Partners in Nes-Ziona, Israel. The transaction, which closed on March 23, includes notes convertible into ordinary shares at

27 Mar 2026, 10:03

Anchorage Becomes First Federally Chartered US Bank to Custody Tron Crypto

Anchorage Digital has added TRX custody and Tron crypto network staking to its platform, making it the first federally chartered crypto bank in the United States to bring the Tron network inside the regulatory perimeter. Tron hosts $84 billion in USDT, more than Ethereum, yet has operated almost entirely outside U.S. institutional frameworks until now. That gap closes here. A federally chartered custodian supporting Tron is not the same as a state-licensed exchange listing TRX. It is a different category of legitimacy, with different compliance obligations, different counterparty implications, and a different signal to the rest of the institutional market. Key Takeaways: Milestone: Anchorage Digital is the first federally chartered U.S. crypto bank to support Tron custody, bringing TRX and future TRC-20 assets—including $84 billion in USDT—into a compliant institutional framework. Regulatory Context: Tron and founder Justin Sun faced longstanding U.S. regulatory friction, including a 2023 Coinbase delisting of TRX; the SEC dismissed securities claims against Sun and the Tron Foundation earlier this month, clearing a key obstacle. Phased Rollout: Initial support covers TRX custody on Anchorage’s main platform and Porto institutional wallet; TRC-20 token support and native TRX staking infrastructure follow in subsequent phases. Discover: The best crypto presales gaining institutional momentum right now What Anchorage Bank Is Actually Building The initial launch supports TRX custody on Anchorage’s core regulated platform and its Porto self-custody institutional wallet. TRC-20 token support and native TRX staking roll out in phases, a staged structure that allows regulatory validation at each step rather than a single broad deployment. Anchorage Digital is your new access point to the @trondao ecosystem. $TRX custody is now live with support for TRC-20 assets and native TRX staking on the way. pic.twitter.com/f4xlKwmcir — Anchorage Digital (@Anchorage) March 26, 2026 TRC-20 support is the operationally significant layer. It means institutions will be able to hold and manage Tron-based stablecoins—including the $84 billion USDT supply sitting on Tron—directly within a federally regulated custody account. That is the use case that matters to institutional treasury desks. Anchorage co-founder Nathan McCauley framed the move as infrastructure-driven: “As TRON expands its presence in the U.S., institutions need trusted infrastructure to securely custody assets and participate in the network. By supporting TRON on Anchorage Digital’s regulated platform, we’re helping bring one of crypto’s largest ecosystems into an institutional framework.” The federal charter distinction matters here. Anchorage holds a national trust bank charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency—the same regulatory body that oversees JPMorgan and Citibank. State-chartered custodians operate under a patchwork of state regimes. A federally chartered institution conducting AML/BSA due diligence on Tron and clearing it for custody sets a compliance benchmark that state-level operators and foreign custodians cannot replicate by definition. Tron’s network scale justifies the scrutiny. The chain has recorded over 371 million total user accounts and more than 13 billion total transactions. It is not a niche protocol. It is core stablecoin infrastructure that U.S. institutions have been structurally locked out of engaging with compliantly—until now. Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio with Tron Crypto Regulatory Clearance as a Market Structure Event The background context is critical. Coinbase delisted TRX in 2023 under regulatory pressure. The SEC pursued securities violations against Sun and the Tron Foundation, claims dismissed only earlier this month, with Rainberry, the corporate parent of Sun’s BitTorrent network, paying a $10 million fine over undisclosed BTT token promotions. The SEC case officially ended yesterday. The judge approved and signed the Final Judgment. The Tron Foundation is fully dismissed on all claims with prejudice. Chapter closed. https://t.co/5zKcAio0ui — TRON DAO (@trondao) March 10, 2026 That legal overhang suppressed U.S. institutional engagement with Tron for years. Its removal, combined with Anchorage’s federal-level due diligence clearance, reopens the market. Anchorage’s federal imprimatur gives other U.S.-regulated entities—prime brokers, custodians, asset managers, a compliance reference point. When America’s only federally chartered crypto bank conducts AML/BSA diligence on a network and approves it for custody, that functions as a de facto institutional clearinghouse signal. Expect other regulated venues to accelerate their own Tron evaluations. Discover: The best crypto presales gaining institutional momentum right now The post Anchorage Becomes First Federally Chartered US Bank to Custody Tron Crypto appeared first on Cryptonews .

27 Mar 2026, 09:30

GameStop’s Bitcoin Collateralization Tactics Prompt New Treasury Income Strategy

GameStop placed nearly its entire Bitcoin reserve as collateral with Coinbase. The company used a covered-call options plan focused on generating option premium income. Continue Reading: GameStop’s Bitcoin Collateralization Tactics Prompt New Treasury Income Strategy The post GameStop’s Bitcoin Collateralization Tactics Prompt New Treasury Income Strategy appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .

27 Mar 2026, 09:10

Binance Australia Faces Devastating $6.9M Fine for Misclassifying Retail Investors

BitcoinWorld Binance Australia Faces Devastating $6.9M Fine for Misclassifying Retail Investors In a landmark ruling with significant implications for the global cryptocurrency sector, an Australian federal court has imposed a devastating $6.9 million fine on Binance’s local entity. The penalty, announced in Sydney, Australia, on April 10, 2025, stems from the platform’s critical failure to correctly categorize hundreds of its users. According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Binance Australia misclassified 524 retail investors as “wholesale” clients. This grave error improperly exposed these everyday customers to complex, high-risk derivatives products, ultimately leading to millions of dollars in collective losses and triggering one of the most substantial regulatory actions against a crypto exchange in the region to date. Binance Australia Fine: The Core of the ASIC Case The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) initiated proceedings against Binance Australia Derivatives in July 2023. The regulator’s investigation centered on the platform’s client onboarding and categorization processes between 2021 and 2023. Specifically, ASIC alleged that Binance’s local subsidiary failed to comply with the Corporations Act 2001. This key legislation mandates strict financial services licensing and consumer protection protocols. Under Australian law, the distinction between a retail client and a wholesale client is fundamental. The classification dictates the level of regulatory protection afforded to an investor. Retail clients receive the highest level of safeguards, including mandatory suitability assessments, fee transparency, and access to external dispute resolution. Conversely, wholesale clients are presumed to be sophisticated investors with greater financial resources and expertise. They therefore operate under a lighter regulatory regime with fewer protective measures. ASIC’s case proved that Binance Australia’s processes were fundamentally flawed. The exchange allegedly used a digital form where users could self-certify as wholesale investors by simply ticking a box. The platform then failed to conduct adequate verification checks on these self-declarations. Consequently, hundreds of individuals who did not meet the legal thresholds for wholesale status were incorrectly onboarded under that category. This systemic failure stripped them of crucial legal protections. The Impact of Misclassification on Retail Investors The misclassification had direct and severe financial consequences for the affected 524 investors. By being wrongly labeled as wholesale clients, these individuals gained access to Binance’s derivatives trading suite. This suite included leveraged token products and futures contracts—complex financial instruments involving significant risk. Retail investors, without the presumed sophistication of wholesale players, often lacked the experience to navigate these volatile products safely. ASIC presented evidence showing that many of these misclassified clients suffered substantial losses. Some individuals reportedly lost their entire investment capital. The absence of retail safeguards meant these users did not receive mandatory risk warnings or product suitability assessments. Furthermore, they lost their right to lodge complaints with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), a free external dispute resolution service. The court heard that the collective financial harm ran into the millions of Australian dollars, underscoring the real-world damage caused by the compliance failure. Expert Analysis on Regulatory Enforcement Trends Financial regulation experts view this ruling as part of a deliberate global trend. Regulatory bodies worldwide are shifting from issuing guidance to taking decisive enforcement action. “This penalty sends an unequivocal message,” stated Dr. Eleanor Vance, a professor of Fintech Regulation at the University of Melbourne. “Regulators are no longer willing to treat cryptocurrency platforms with kid gloves. The expectation is clear: if you offer financial products in a jurisdiction, you must adhere to that jurisdiction’s investor protection laws with rigor and precision.” This case also highlights a specific regulatory focus on internal governance and compliance systems. The court noted that Binance’s error was not a one-off mistake but a procedural failure. This finding emphasizes that regulators are scrutinizing the design and implementation of a firm’s operational controls, not just its public-facing actions. The table below outlines the key legal differences between retail and wholesale client status in Australia, which were central to the case: Comparison of Client Classifications Under Australian Law Retail Client: Entitled to a Statement of Advice (SOA), product disclosure statements, and access to the AFCA. Suitability assessments are mandatory. Wholesale Client: Generally does not receive an SOA or PDS. No mandatory suitability test. No access to AFCA for disputes. Financial Threshold: Retail clients have net assets below $2.5 million or gross income below $250,000. Wholesale clients exceed these. Product Restriction: Retail clients face limits on certain high-risk derivatives. Wholesale clients have broader access. Broader Context for Cryptocurrency Regulation in Australia The Binance Australia fine does not exist in a vacuum. It follows a series of regulatory actions by ASIC and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) against cryptocurrency service providers. In recent years, Australian authorities have significantly ramped up their oversight of the digital asset industry. This effort aims to align the crypto sector with the nation’s robust traditional financial services regulatory framework. In 2024, AUSTRAC imposed a substantial fine on another crypto exchange for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) breaches. Furthermore, the Australian government has been actively consulting on a comprehensive licensing regime for crypto asset providers. This proposed framework would mandate that exchanges obtain a financial services license, bringing them directly under ASIC’s ongoing supervision. The court’s decision in the Binance case is widely interpreted as a precursor to this stricter, formalized regulatory environment. It establishes a clear precedent that existing financial laws apply forcefully to crypto businesses. Globally, this ruling resonates with similar actions by regulators in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. There is a concerted international push to close regulatory gaps and ensure consumer protection keeps pace with financial innovation. The message to the industry is consistent: technological novelty does not excuse compliance with foundational investor protection principles. Conclusion The $6.9 million fine against Binance Australia represents a pivotal moment in the maturation of cryptocurrency regulation. The court’s decision firmly upholds the principle that all financial service providers, regardless of their technological basis, must prioritize accurate client classification and robust investor protection. This ruling not only provides redress for the 524 misclassified investors but also sets a powerful legal precedent for the entire digital asset industry. As regulators worldwide continue to sharpen their focus, exchanges must demonstrate that their compliance frameworks are as advanced as their trading platforms. The era of ambiguous standards is ending, replaced by an expectation of clear accountability and unwavering adherence to local financial laws. FAQs Q1: What exactly did Binance Australia do wrong? The Australian subsidiary incorrectly classified 524 retail investors as “wholesale” clients. This misclassification occurred because Binance relied on a self-certification process without proper verification, violating Australian financial services law and stripping those investors of critical consumer protections. Q2: Why is the distinction between retail and wholesale clients so important? Australian law provides vastly different levels of regulatory protection based on this classification. Retail clients receive mandatory risk warnings, suitability assessments, and access to free dispute resolution. Wholesale clients, assumed to be sophisticated, do not get these safeguards. Misclassification can expose unsophisticated investors to inappropriate, high-risk products. Q3: Can the affected investors get their money back? The court fine is paid to the government, not directly to the investors. However, the ruling strengthens ASIC’s case and may support individual civil actions for compensation. Investors may also now have a clearer path to seek redress through other legal channels following the establishment of Binance’s liability. Q4: Does this affect Binance users in other countries? While the ruling is specific to Binance’s Australian operations, it has global implications. It signals to regulators worldwide that such misclassification is a serious offense. It may prompt reviews of client onboarding processes in other jurisdictions and encourages investors everywhere to understand their own classification status. Q5: What should cryptocurrency investors learn from this case? Investors must proactively understand how an exchange classifies them and what protections that classification entails. They should be wary of platforms that offer complex derivatives without thorough suitability checks. This case underscores the importance of using licensed and fully compliant platforms that prioritize regulatory obligations alongside market access. This post Binance Australia Faces Devastating $6.9M Fine for Misclassifying Retail Investors first appeared on BitcoinWorld .